Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 1, 2015 9:00pm-9:31pm PST

9:00 pm
identify a subset of the full project features including a bus only line from market street to spaniard avenue, and improvements including bus bulbs and other improvements operational improvements and pedestrian enhancements. the cost of the improvements, 15 to $20 million. the idea again is to bring the benefits with travel savings, and improvement and pedestrian improvements to the corridor sooner than the full project. in terms of the schedule this project is really three seems of work. we have the steps for the environmental process we would like to complete by the fall of 1015, and we would like to get started on doing the near term construction phase improvements doing conceptual engineering this winter and moving into
9:01 pm
construction by 2015 and 2016 and '17. we do want to keep moving forward on the full project. we expect to begin conceptual engineering in the spring of 2015. that leads me to the requested action items. the first of this is the memorandum of agreement the san francisco planning department. the staff from the planting determine and the city attorney are making sure that we are meeting the legal requirements. this is a memorandum of agreement to reimburse staff for their participation here. the funding for this was approved in july of 2013. we're doing now to seek the authority to contract directly with the planning department for this work. the other set of action items is about the professional services contract. we're seeking two actions here. one is to assign the contract from the jacob engineering group
9:02 pm
to a sub consultant on the team. circle point. the work has progressed and the focus of the process has shifted to the environmental documentation. circle point is the central and most important team member for this, for delivering this work. so it is just a much more efficient from the standpoint of delivering the products and invoicing administratively for the tral authority to -- transportation authority to have a direct relationship with circle point and also an increase in the contact amount by $225,000 the funds from this come from freed up funds that come from the prop k allocation request that i mentioned at the beginning of my presentation. that concludes my presentation.
9:03 pm
i'm happy to answer questions. >> any questions? all right. commissioner tang. >> thank you two questions, initially we issued an rfp for jacobs. >> correct. >> so there are any issues going directly at subcontractor? >> there is no issue. there is a stipulation to assign the contract with agreement of the parties. >> the second question, by doing this we are saving money -- >> correct. >> doing the environmental review. if you could share with us how much that is. >> ah, the total contract amount is $4.4 million that's for environmental review and planning and engineering that has been done thus far. i don't have the breakout of what would be safing from going from jacobs to circle point just off of the top of my head, but the -- the -- the management of
9:04 pm
the project, from an efficiency standpoint it is much better at this point. we're not really involving the engineering and planning aspect as much at the moment, we're really focused on the environmental work and getting through that phase, which is again, circle point is the central -- sub consultant team member that has been working on this. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner two. >> thank you. so the current time table is the construction will begin in 2018? is that -- >> that's the current time table. yes. >> and how longed with the construction be anticipated to last? >> we're looking at a two-year construction period possibly but we need to do initial analysis in the next phase doing the final engineering design on the project, to focus how long that construction period would take.
9:05 pm
there are variables here including just how long a block of, a set of construction blocks we can take up at a time. the longer we can go like say five blocks, the shorter the overall construction period. but obviously if we extend it to that set of blocks, as we extend the length of the -- portion of the corridor under construction at any given time there are impacts that that-- that arise that we, we want to make sure that we're clear on with the community and so if we shorten the amount of blocks for construction there is less interruption, but it lengthens the construction project. with the longer set of blocks we can shorten that process. and two years is what we're looking at. i think, this, again we're looking to have a full
9:06 pm
conversation with the community as we get into the engineering and design process how we want to construction to go in the corridor. >> how confident are you that construction would actually begin in 2018? >> that is dependent on getting full funding for the project. we are, we don't have a full funding plan now. that is definitely work ahead of us. >> let's assume full funding. i know that funding is always a variable. if we have the money. are you pretty confident we will be in construction by 2018. >> yes. >> when, remind me when gary brt sort of formally started in terms of the process. ten years ago or -- >> ah, so the environmental process? started in 2008. the bus rapid transit was identified as a authority in
9:07 pm
2004 in the long-range county-wide transportation plan and it was approved by voters in 2004 and it went through feasible studies. >> when did the feasible studies start? >> 2005? '4? 2004. >> so if this, assuming funding is not an issue and it gets done in 2020 presumably it is like a 16 year process. i know that we have the discussions before. i raise it again, not to pour salt in the wounds. but a constant remainder of the challenges we face in san francisco with project delivery. we talked about this before when we went to mexico city and it was what three years idea in someone's head to cutting the ribbon on brt. and i just -- how -- what's the current thinking of staff in
9:08 pm
terms of how we can -- in the future, because we want to do other brts, how can we make sure it doesn't take 16 years from the beginning of feasible study to cut the ribbon. >> chair, the executive director. i appreciate the question. it is fair. we did propose to the voters to develop -- it in the city that turned into the muni forward program, on the basis it is faster and quicker and more effective. as that said, brd does not exist in the united states. it is like a train-like configuration, it challenges people to understand, you know how it really works. can the bus be that -- that rapid and reliable if we give it a lane. i think the good news is that while -- being the first one out had to deal with the initial challenges and then gary was halfway behind, but now bearing
9:09 pm
a lot of the dividend of us having gone first. the agencies are working better than ever. what we have been able to do chester and this partner at mta has kept the environmental work going forward and developed the program of improvements the residents can see benefits starting next year. that said, again the brt and now the 16th corridor rapid transit, that is contemplating it dedicated lane as well. the good news there, that process will hopefully go faster and more smoothly, so the hope with our progress and that of our neighbors in the east bay with the ac rapid transit project. we're going to see more and more understanding of what this new mote of transportation could be and to see the funding coming together, thank you to the voters with in fusion from prop a and prop b. we can deliver an improvement
9:10 pm
project in the corridor, and culminating in delivery by 2018 and '19. >> i appreciate that. now, having gone through, but the end is in site for brt and it is extremely complicated project because of how many different iterations it is so variable -- but now that we have gone through or going through these, two for future brts how long -- you know do -- >> the cycle. >> should it actually take now that we have, we're close to get a few of them under our belt? how many years should it takes. i know every project is unique and it is always given the process in san francisco -- which is a never ending process, and you have to constantly start a new process over and over again so this never really a clear end, which is a frustration for me and for a lot of people in terms of how
9:11 pm
long it takes to get any project done, transit or otherwise in san francisco, keeping the reality in mind, how long do you think it should take. >> for example, take planning as a stage. two years i think at the most. if we were to do it in a robust efficient way. two year project to get to the environmental. by the way, we are hoping for environmental sort of environmental review reform that will benefit brt projects and all projects that will face a process -- and maintaining the public process is very important, but using a noerr program performance measure for traffic impacts happening that will benefit the transit processes. but two years for planning would be a great sort of go for us. followed by one year of what we call conceptual engineering they sort out the policies and design decisions that are behind-the-scenes. the agencies are debating this
9:12 pm
and that and get the scope more had clear in the city family of agencies including permits. and then the phase, final disease, and you're seeing the procurement of the trolleybuses coming in, and things are getting going. that is one more year of final design. so, all told it would be amazing to go from consent to construction, bid documents going out and get ready for construction in a four-year period. and construction itself is another question. that needs to be, as chester mentioned, refined. those plans need to be refined and developed with the community. how quickly the construction can go. >> have we seen improvements in terms of mta's project delivery. i see it in context of a small project in my district diamond and basworth, that mta is doing
9:13 pm
the delivery itself of the small, very small -- extremely small project and i feel like it is this, if it were a new subway line because of the sheer amount of time, every sepof the -- step of the way including the bit documents and getting things started. it is very, very frustrating. i'm wondering if we work with mta regularly and seeing any signs of improve. in mta's project delivery. >> i think it is happening. it is happening at mta and across the implementing agencies. the coordination of the department of public works is moving forward where, you know, the department heads and the senior management teams are getting together very regularly to program that out. this capital planning and funding and project delivery effort i think has deepened in the last two years in recognition that we can do better and we need to do better.
9:14 pm
this is also being informed by new tools, tools like -- you know computer systems where everybody puts their project puc, the utilities, bpw -- mta they can see when projects are going forward. that tool and performance-based systems, and coronation are coming on-line as well. i see evidence of it. it is frustrating. having a laser focus on what the priorityerize have helpful. so when the time comes to put it altogether it is very clear what is expected. you know? the capital project with some -- vision zero and the tep seems to be a really strong formula to allow project managers and the public to ago the cope -- scopes of the project. once we know the scope putting it together and getting it out
9:15 pm
is a challenge that could continue to improve with the efficiencies of using the city forces combined with the best of the private sector and making sure the regulatory and]lwg legislative actions can follow significantly. we saw outreach and milestone. so and we appreciated that. i think there is evidence of progress. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. thanks to the executive director for that response. chester anything else? no. okay. thank you. seeing there are no other questions on the roster. let's go to public comment on this item. any public comment. it is closed. thank you for your presentation.
9:16 pm
mr. clerk, call the next item. >> first roll call first on item 7. [ calling roll ] the item passes. >> the item passes. >> can you please call the next item? 8. recommend authorizing the executive director to execute a funding agreement with the metropolitan transportation commission, in an amount not to exceed $300,000, for the san francisco bay area core capacity transit study, and authorizing the executive director to negotiate agreement payment terms and non-material agreement terms and conditions _ action* attachment >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. senior transportation planner. this is an update and an an action that we need to fully participate in that effort. so the bay area transit core capacity study. i would like to explain it in context of a few visuals that should not be a surprise to
9:17 pm
anyone that rides our public transportation system during peak hours. we have crowding on b.a.r.t. today. we experience the same in the metro rail system. we are growing. and a lot more housing and jobs are anticipated. you can see the cranes and construction in parts of town. so when the last long-range planning efforts were underway and approved, both the area effort and our citywide plan, we identified starting to tee up what the transit capacity improvements needed to be made to accommodate the growth already underway, we need to partner to define what those are. fortunately, we put together a great scope of work and partnership, mtc ff cta, ffmca -- partnering, we applied for and were successful in
9:18 pm
receiving $1 million in tiger planning, very cup pentative grant program and put together $1 million in local match coming from each of the partner agencies. we are just concluding starting up activities now and the idea is that this effort will define short, medium and long-term capacity solutions for the corridor and the mini metro rail system. so that's the high level. the action we're seeking today is the authorize us to enter into an agreement with mtc. the lead agency, they have procured a consultant team for the effort. and our contribution is $300,000. we already appreciated those funds to us back at your september board meeting and that appropriation also covered staff time as part of the effort. so that's about all that i wanted to cover. the action is to authorize the executive director to enter into
9:19 pm
the agreement. there is an attachment to the memo. >> that sounds great. thank you very much. there are no questions. oh commissioner tang has a commission. >> thank you, one quick question which is the study expected to come out. >> the study is just kicking off now. about a 2 1/2 year effort with interim deliverables intended to inform the regional transportation plan approved in 2017 and a lot of the plans will be in 2016. we will have a much more refined schedule of how the study will progress as we conclude startup, probably in the next month or so, and we envision substantial public involvement and have more information about the timing of the meetings. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you very much. let's go ahead and go to public comment. no public comment. it is closed.
9:20 pm
do a roll call vote. >> on item 8. [ calling roll ] the item passes. >> thank you very much. i think we are going to go back to item number 4. >> uh-huh. >> perfect. let's call item number 4. >> recommending exercise the number one option. >> thank you. >> [listing item number 4]. action item. >> thank you. >> cynthia fong, deputy director for finance administration. due to the sake of time i wanted to make sure the community's wish for a full presentation of theime -- item or open it up for comments. >> i would be interested in a
9:21 pm
full presentation. >> okay. >> back in march of 2012 the authority board approved a one year contract with two individual one year amendments for an moa with the office of workforce development to enhance the hire for the phase ii. there was a goal of, there was a 50% goal for a new hire. we've been working with the -- office of economic workforce development for the past two years. after the first year contract we brought this amendment to the board for an additional one year term. then we are here before the committee again to ask for the second and final extension to this contract. i have -- representative from the oewd and staff here to work you through the services they provide and some of the
9:22 pm
information attached to the memo before you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. pat, city build, economic and workforce development. our charge was to develop a workforce policy for this project. there is some challenges early on a. this is the first cal trans project that we're aware of in the state has any sort of local hire provisions. we had a very difficult negotiation early on to try and set practice in place to ensure opportunities for local residents. this was also a unique collaborative for this project. i think this is the first time cal trans has embarked on this sort of endove for this public-private partnership. so despite of our best efforts to get policies more consistent with the mandatory local hire provisions.
9:23 pm
we ended up adopts provisions very similar to the san francisco's first source hiring requirements. those are good faith efforts on behalf of the contractor towards meeting a goal of 50% of all new hires. so if you can review the data on the left side of the report it goes through that there were 120 local residents that were hired on this project that represents a 30%,jx•zst as opposed to the 50% goal. ku >> i'm sorry a quick question, do you know where they were hired? which neighbors. do you have that level of detail? >> i can provide that. certainly we have access to all of that data by zip code. we can identify workers. anybody who is received employment services through our office would be registered with the san francisco address. our practices are -- focused for the economically disadvantaged so predominantly in the
9:24 pm
southeast. certainly that is the case of individuals coming through our workforce training programs. we can provide detailed information, and pie charts breaking that down. the 36% goal is not consistent with the 50% overall, but it is consistent with force source obligations on other projects throughout san francisco. certainly superior to the fist source provisions on transbay, a similar project with regional and national funding sources and also with first source obligations. some of the challenges on this project are the -- in addition to the unique nature of this type of development and working with cal trans for the first time is it is coming to miss of a large construction boom in san francisco where local hires are really in demand with all of the local hire provisions citywide. the contractor was very specific on certifications come from
9:25 pm
certain individuals. also there was a shortage of operating engineers. which also speaks to some of the shortens. the overall numbers, not part of this report as well. even throw there is a 36% achievement regards to the new hires in s in res in first source obligations. approximately 25% overall what they are meeting. not just new hires, but residency hiring. that is how the mandatory local hire is measured. not just new hires, but overall employment. the numbers are encouraging and been improving over the last few months. initially this project was challenged. the contractor never worked on the provisions before and cal trans never dealt with them. there was a learning curve, but we are encouraged moving forward. we can provide all of that data
9:26 pm
detailed by demographics, by zip code. >> this is great news. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. cynthia, i don't know if you have anymore. >> i would like to just mention the fact, before -- the committee on december 3rd, a unanimous motion of support. in terms of financial impact, we are currently able to fund this $164,000 contract with an appropriation previously approved by the board. any adjustments that need to be made for the physical year 15-15 budge -- 14-15 would be made at the midyear point. with that i'm happy to answer questions that the committee would have. >> thank you, staff for coming back and make the presentation. it is important for us to call this into the record and the folks not here in this chamber
9:27 pm
and that home watching and listening it is important that we are making efforts to expand local hiring at every opportunity that we have. so thank you for your presentation. no comments from -- callings. public comment. no public comment. it is closed. let's go ahead and do a roll call vote. >> on item four? >> on item 4. correct. [ calling roll ] >> the item passes. >> great. thank you very much. is there -- what is the next item mr. clerk? >> item 9. >> all right. seeing there is no introduction of new items. let's -- go ahead and open up to
9:28 pm
general public comment. okay. item 11. >> item 11. public comment. >> no public comment. all right. this .
9:29 pm
9:30 pm
>> good afternoon and welcome to the transportation authority special meeting of the subcommittee on december 11, 2014, my name is supervisor jane kim i'll be chairing today's meeting unfortunately supervisor yee will not be present we want to acknowledge the staff jim smith who records our meeting as he transcribes them on line and our clerk steve


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on